VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

550 DECISION - 257
Ram Chander vs. Union of India,
1986(2) SLR SC 608
The appellant, Shunter Grade B at Loco Shed, Ghaziabad
was inflicted the penalty of removal from service under rule 6(viii) of
the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 by order
of the General Manager, Northern Railway dated 24-8-71. The
gravamen of the charge was that he assaulted his immediate superior
Benarsi Das, Assistant Loco Foreman while he was returning after
performing his duties, nursing a grouse that he had deprived him of
the benefit of one day’s additional wages for 2-10-69, which was a
national holiday. Banarsi Das lodged a report with the police but no
action was taken thereon. More than a month later, Banarsi Das
made a complaint against the appellant to his superior officers and
this gave rise to a departmental proceeding. The Inquiry Officer fixed
the date of inquiry on 11-5-70 at Ghaziabad. The inquiry could not
be held on that date due to some administrative reasons and was
then fixed for 11-7-70. The appellant was duly informed of the date
but he did not appear at the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer proceeded
ex parte and examined witnesses, and by his report dated 26-5-71
found the charge proved. The General Manager, Northern Railway
agreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and came to the provisional
conclusion that the penalty of removal from service should be inflicted
and issued a show cause notice dated 26-5-71. The appellant offered
his explanation and the General Manager by his order dated 24-8-71
imposed the penalty of removal from service. The Railway Board by
the impugned order dated 11-3-72 dismissed his appeal. The
appellant moved the High Court by a petition and the single Judge by
his order dated 16-8-83 dismissed the writ petition holding that since
the Railway Board agreed with the findings of the General Manager,
there was no duty cast on the Railway Board to record reasons for its
decision. A Division Bench by its order dated 15-2-84 dismissed his
letters patent appeal in lumine.
The Supreme Court referred to the procedure laid down for